and many more benefits!

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Events & Promotions

Christina scored 760 by having clear (ability) milestones and a trackable plan to achieve the same. Attend this webinar to learn how to build trackable milestones that leverage your strengths to help you get to your target GMAT score.

Right now, their GMAT prep, GRE prep, and MBA admissions consulting services are up to $1,100 off. GMAT (Save up to $261): SPRINGEXTRAGMAT GRE Prep (Save up to $149): SPRINGEXTRAGRE MBA (Save up to $1,240): SPRINGEXTRAMBA

Hide Tags

Show Tags

Updated on: 23 Sep 2017, 02:41

3

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

71%(01:46) correct 29%(02:27) wrong based on 272 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Most Helpful Expert Reply

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jun 2012, 14:55

4

The conclusion: no official confirmation of scientific work is not a problem because replication will sort out any inconsistencies.

Any answer choice that shows the replication process is somehow faulty will be sufficient to weaken the conclusion.

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

If (A) is true, then the potential inconsistencies can go undetected for years. Such an occurrence can be very harmful. Essentially, erroneous information is being bandied about for years before any follow-up experiments can show this to be the case. Therefore, replication can only be successful if it is actually employed, and (A) successfully weakens the conclusion.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

This does not address the argument.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

This answer choice would strengthen the argument, if anything. Even less need for confirmation.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

While this may be true, the argument contends that replication will take care of this careless reporting.

General Discussion

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 19:23

vineetgupta wrote:

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Please give reasons for ur choice....

Argument is : There is no reason to confirm the work of the scientist becuase there is a system which keeps track of replications.So when other scientists come up with different results the previous results will be disconfirmed.

A: Irrelevant because the work can go unchallenged even after the results have been confirmed and published. History has shown several theories were proved wrong decades after they were published.

B: S

C:W

D,E:Irrelevant

C
_________________

------------------------------------------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams"

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Dec 2006, 22:14

joinforum wrote:

vineetgupta wrote:

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Please give reasons for ur choice....

Argument is : There is no reason to confirm the work of the scientist becuase there is a system which keeps track of replications.So when other scientists come up with different results the previous results will be disconfirmed.

A: Irrelevant because the work can go unchallenged even after the results have been confirmed and published. History has shown several theories were proved wrong decades after they were published.

B: S

C:W

D,E:Irrelevant

C

I think A is the answer because, for years scientists and public at large might consider findings of a particular publication as true and spend their time, funds, and energy inappropriately. Hence, there is a reason to confirm the work of the scientist.

Show Tags

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Dec 2006, 01:12

1

Give me A!- B, C Irrelevant.
B: Quite obviously
C: The fact that most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to replication does not say whether unconfirmed results are harmful or not.
- D Irrelevant comparison
- E : I took awhile to eliminate this. But I guess this strengthens the argument. If most scientists work is teams then they could already be verifying each others results. So no need for explicit replication. I know this is a bit far fetched but it does not weaken the argument for sure!

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Apr 2015, 10:27

3

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.
_________________

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Apr 2015, 22:27

1

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published.

P1: There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. P2: Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. P3: It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.>>Strengthen. (C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.>>Strengthen(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.>> Irrelevant.(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.>> Irrelevant

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Sep 2015, 00:15

ChrisLele wrote:

The conclusion: no official confirmation of scientific work is not a problem because replication will sort out any inconsistencies.

Any answer choice that shows the replication process is somehow faulty will be sufficient to weaken the conclusion.

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

If (A) is true, then the potential inconsistencies can go undetected for years. Such an occurrence can be very harmful. Essentially, erroneous information is being bandied about for years before any follow-up experiments can show this to be the case. Therefore, replication can only be successful if it is actually employed, and (A) successfully weakens the conclusion.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

This does not address the argument.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

This answer choice would strengthen the argument, if anything. Even less need for confirmation.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

While this may be true, the argument contends that replication will take care of this careless reporting.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

This does not address the argument.

Hi Chris

Need your help. It is in these types of easy questions where I falter. First I short-listed A and E and finally went for E. My thought process was even if theories go unchallenged for years, still we cant say that replication method is of no use and has failed. I also cant assume a theory gone unnoticed will be harmful-may or may not. I eliminated A for this and went for E thinking if scientists work in teams, it may not be possible to identify the one at fault and the culprit can go unnoticed every time.

I think I tend to complicate questions or have a tendency to think too much and so I am suffering with CR. Can you give some advice? How to address this issue? Tx.

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Feb 2016, 12:16

gmater12 wrote:

Could anyone please explain further on this??

There is no mention of any time frame on any of the premises.

Can someone also specify what is wrong with option E?

Can the "other" scientists mentioned in the premise not be part of the group??

In "Weaken" questions - The idea is to attack the argument - i.e. conclusion. Always write the goal of the weakening. The goal in this case is : There is a reason that the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published.

This reason (one of the possible reasons) is highlighted in option A. Option E only mentions that scientists work as a part of team rather than alone. This aspect doesn't give any reason for the scientists' work to be officially confirmed. (Working as a part of team can lead of confirmation or disconfirmation of the work. No clear cut position)

Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE

Joined: 15 Aug 2014

Posts: 282

Concentration: Marketing, Technology

GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25

GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25

WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Feb 2016, 06:59

souvik101990 wrote:

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Can Someone explain why option C is Incorrect!
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

Re: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be
[#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Feb 2016, 11:14

smartguy595 wrote:

souvik101990 wrote:

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

Can Someone explain why option C is Incorrect!

Option (C) States scientists are under pressure , there can be 2 possible outcomes of working under pressure -

1. Scientists can be cautious of their work , be very careful and produce accurate results.2. Scientists can go unnerved and commit some errors.

If scientists are cautious of their work , very careful then there is no need of scrutinizing of replication of their work, however if they are go unnerved and commit errors then it needs to be checked and requires replication by other scientists before they are published.

This option doesn't produce a way way answer ( whether there is requirement/replication of experiments by scientists ) hence we can negate this answer.

_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS